Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Since I am so interested in lake monsters i really dug this movie. This movie is worth a see. If you like the so awful they are good types of films check it out. The effects are really good as well just think "Land of the Lost". I originally watched this movie in the early 90's maybe more like 89/90 on a local channel monster show called "Morgus Presents". I didn't scare me but I was 8 and anything B felt more like an A. Years later I seen it on DVD at a local Circuit City and bought it immediately so I can give it a 9 because it has a personal spot in my heart right there with The Monster Squad and Gremlins. Good B movie fun for all ages. | positive |
So this is what actress Kim Basinger has succumbed to? Mmm
to tell the truth the film's title is something quite eye grabbing to getting your interest and plot outline reads so basic, but simplicity can have its strengths. Anyhow by the end of 'While She Was Out' I was left feeling rather indifferent. Not the worse (despite being engulfed by negatives), but there's easily way better in what is an causally lukewarm, but compact and unbalanced late-night survival fable of a feeble suburban housewife stranded in the woods trying to fight for her life after she witnessed the death of a rent a cop that came to her aid, when she provoked an ugly exchange with some punks in a shopping car park.<br /><br />The problem here falls on the misguidedly erratic and foreseeable material (taken from a short story), along with the very variable performances. The flimsy script was poorly thought-out (which isn't so good when your plot has a slight structure to hang off), so many wretched inclusions and dubious actions just go on to find its way in this endless chain of events. As for the bunch of stereotypical goons (led by an unconvincing Lukas Hass as a loose canon) terrorizing Basinger, well they were less than threatening, but hopelessly clueless. Watching Basinger scrounging around in the dank wilderness with a red tool box in her hand (don't ask me why?) knocking off these wannabe punks one by one became ridiculous because it didn't elicit tension or emotion
but instead clumsy jolts that were absurdly daft because of the stupidity of the lead up. Basinger's performance is stout-like, but doesn't craft much empathy. Craig Sheffer shows up as her hot-headed husband. Strangely I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen
thinking to myself that red toolbox is hypnotic (why would she be constantly carrying it) and what tool was she going to use to dispatch the next thug
her choices were quite disappointing. Watching her transformation through the traumatic situation when things are finally turned around is rather empty, due to its unsure tone and the ending is something you could see miles ahead.<br /><br />Susan Montford's soberly slick direction lacks cohesion and energy, as it pretty much chugs along. I liked the opening credits though, with its hauntingly sullen score (which is the most effective thing throughout the feature) and polished photography.<br /><br />No great shakes. Doesn't ask much of your time, but I wouldn't care to see it again. However with the inclusion of a Joy Division song, it made me grab a couple of their albums for a listen. | negative |
This picture is an interesting saga of the struggle of pioneers led by Daniel Boone in the wilderness of Cumberland Gap while being threatened by hostile Indians. A treacherous Frenchman is the cause of all the trouble between the settlers and the red men while Boone tries to convince the Indians that the pioneers only want to build homes and live in peace. The film has a certain appeal because it is not a polished production but there are good action scenes, although somewhat violent for its time. The cast is comprised of B actors but they are all good, especially Lon Chaney as the Indian chief. Bruce Bennett is okay as Boone but is a bit too clean cut and soft spoken to be believable as a frontiersman. The dialogue is rather trite but the scenery lends itself to the realism of the Kentucky backwoods. | positive |
This was one of the worst movies that I have ever watched. The story was about a woman prisoner sent into space to try and save mankind but what it actually turned out to be was that the prisoner was actually put on board a space ship with a nymphomaniac lesbian commander. All the story was about was having sex over and over again. There was no need for all of this footage - only to create a soft porn film. Of course we had to see the heroin of the movie having sex for about 2 minutes. I don't know what all this had to do with the actual plot of the movie -except I assume to get men to watch it. I gave it 1 out of 10 only because there was no other rating lower. Don't waste your money or time- it has nothing to do with science fiction but rather a movie for young adolescent boys to watch to see t&a. The creature was shown only more than half way through the movie and looked like the alien in the movie with Signorney Weaver. Poor excuse for entertainment. | negative |
With so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly "Mortal Kombat" and "Seven"), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending. It seems that Antonio Banderas hasn't been able to find a decent script since "Desperado," the only remarkable film he's done. Anyone with an eighth of a brain could tell who DeMornay's stalker was from the beginning. Her flashbacks of the death of her mother did nothing but muddle an already paper-thin story. Pity that Dennis Miller was wasted in this film; this part resembles his eerily similar role in "The Net." <br /><br />The convoluted ending had me shaking my head, as I pretty much did throughout the entire movie. Plus, any film that depicts animal cruelty in any shape or form, no matter how fake it looks, automatically gets the thumbs-down from me. <br /><br />To make a long story short, if you want to enjoy a good thriller, then avoid this at all costs. Never talk to strangers...especially those who recommend this movie. 2/10 | negative |
I really enjoyed the film. It was really cheesy at times. (They destroy the villain with hair driers--but where are they plugged in?) It's a unique film though, and I enjoyed the acting of Courtney Draper and Tamara Hope. I also enjoyed Fanuel (however you write it...) liking Megan's charecter because she called him a dweeb. Besides the acting, the "rewinding" and showing what happened on Ariel's and then Megan's point of view was quite interesting. I saw it twice and I'd see it again | negative |
This movie was disappointing for at least one of two reasons. The suspense created disappeared because of horrible acting or lack of direction from the director.. I don't know.. it was like a tasty bubble gum that seemed to run out of flavor yet you continue to chew on it because it once tasted great. Like most thrillers The Hitchhiker had promise yet failed to deliver when it had me bright eyed and ready to turn the volume down(I was watching the movie alone.. in the dark) This so called thriller simply came apart like it was made of Lego transforming into something else. It simply ran out of gas and left me staring at a made-for-TV-like style movie with one exception.. it was probably rated-R. | negative |
Rendered in beautiful water colors, Ponyo At The Cliff is definitely a sight to behold, vaguely remembering the trailer, witch i didn't find that impressive, i was surprised at how beautiful and detailed it was. This film just washed over me with its purity.<br /><br />At the center is a young boy that comes into contact with a sea creature, and its their relationship that carries the movie. Miyazaki is a master both at creating memorable imagery and showing young ones interacting in a believable way with their little quirks intact.<br /><br />There are a few parts that didn't sit well with me. It would be an understatement to say that the music during a particular scene "resembled" Ride Of The Valkyrians, its a shame because such a precious film as this cant afford to take liberties and it hurt a otherwise truly great scene. The antagonist and its back-story never interested me either, but i guess it served more as a background then anything else.<br /><br />Anyway, great film. The boat trip scenario with all its imagery and sea-creatures stood out me thinks. Pure and magical. And yes, handrawn artwork is more intimate then computer animated, I'm really pumped for Princes And The Frog now. | positive |
The Vietnam War era is certainly far before my time, but it has always interested me, and I have seen many films about it. All of the others I'd seen had dealt strictly with the front-line of battle. When I read a description of "The War At Home," I found the concept intriguing. No Vietnam War movie I'd ever heard of talked about what happens to a soldier once the fighting is over with. <br /><br />One night, while flipping through channels, the movie aired on The Sundance Channel. I set down the remote and settled back to watch it. I did not move from my seat during the entire two hours; it's one of those movies that keeps you very interested because there is no way to predict what is going to happen next. <br /><br />This movie made me a huge fan of Emilio Estevez. I had enjoyed him very much as Billy the Kid in the "Young Guns" movies, but I never saw anything he did afterward. Emilio proved to be very talented at writing and directing as well as acting. <br /><br />The pacing of the movie is done extremely well. I am hard-pressed to think of a point where it drags. <br /><br />What amazes me is that it didn't get an Oscar or any real recognition when it came out. It is a dramatic story about parents trying to cope with the fact that their son is not who he used to be and probably will never be as they remembered him again. Definitely worth seeing. | positive |
I know a lot of people would claim certain films as 'the worst of all time' but I think Redneck stakes a claim for this prize. A combination of quite dreadful acting from both Mark Lester and Telly Savales and plot progression that defies belief.<br /><br />On Telly Saveles: was he drunk when he acted in this? He seems to play a slurring, laughing lunatic with no sense of conviction. Maybe he mixed his medication with his whiskey, I don't know.<br /><br />On Mark Lester: A performance more wooden than a carpenter's workshop. His clipped British tones don't belong in this film; and his transformation from sheltered teenager to gangster's apprentice in 24 hours is mad. And the strip scene with Mosquito does not have any relevance to the plot at all; perhaps the director likes this sort of thing.<br /><br />Plot logic: when Memphis and Mosquito ambush the car at the beginning, why doesn't Mark Lester's mother do or say anything to get her son out of the car, before the loonies drive it off? She just lets them all go, without saying a word!! On the other hand, Redneck has to be seen - you won't believe how bad it is otherwise! | negative |
Not as bad as some people say...This is a unofficial Bond movie and a remake of "Thunderball", written by Kevin McClory (co- producer in "Thunderball"). Well, the cast is very very interesting, Maria Brandauer is a great Bond- villain, Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera are just like the "original" Bond- girls, plus Rowan Atkinson and a truly great Edward Fox, who looks really refreshing in the "M" role. In fact, the whole movie is refreshing and gives some new impulses. Sean Connery does it once more confident and charming, except that he looks a little bit too old. But alright, he is the original Bond and it was great to see him once more in this role. The locations are also typical- Bahamas, France, etc. The only thing that really fails is the music score, the song "Never say never again" is O.K., but the theme song is just missing. All in one, a nice try to make a difference from the comic and silly Roger Moore movies like "Moonraker". Only if there was another story, "Thunderball" was a excellent movie and really did not needed a remake | negative |
If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother. | negative |
Cult-director Lucio Fulci is probably most famous for his gory Zombie flicks from the 1980s that earned him his rightful reputation as the "Godfather Of Gore". Fulci's absolute greatest film, however, dates back to 1972 and, while it is definitely gritty and violent, it is not nearly as gory as many of his other films. "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" aka. "Don't Torture A Duckling" of 1972 is not only by far Fulci's greatest film, this tantalizing and utterly brilliant Giallo is one of the absolute highlights of the genre. The stunning atmosphere and tantalizing suspense, the great Sizilian setting, the intriguing story the brilliant performances or the intense moments of sheer shock - I don't know what to praise most about this ingenious Giallo! "Don't Torture A Duckling" truly delivers cinematic perfection in every aspect, which makes it an absolute masterpiece of Italian Horror cinema.<br /><br />Contrary to other Gialli, it is not seductive beauty queens who are slain one by one, but little boys who fall victims to a killer on the loose. Bodies of little boys are found in rural Sicily. While the police are desperately searching for the killer, the little town is basically full of strange people, and the townsfolk are screaming for a culprit...<br /><br />The film is stunningly suspenseful and uncompromising from the very beginning, with a gritty, dark, and constantly tense atmosphere that has yet to find an equal. The acting performances are among the best in Italian Horror cinema. Tomas Milian (one of my personal all-time favorite actors) is excellent in the lead, as journalist Andrea Martinelli who is investigating the crimes. Sexy Barbara Bouchet delivers both eye-candy and a brilliant performance. Equally outstanding performances come from Irene Papas and Florinda Bolkan, who is utterly brilliant in her role. The great score by Riz Ortolani brilliantly intensifies the suspense and atmosphere, and the film is ingeniously shot in fascinating Sicilian landscapes. Although not as gory as many other Fulci films, this film is definitely gritty and uncompromising in its violence, with a few shockingly brutal scenes.<br /><br />"Don't Torture A Duckling" has everything brilliant Horror requires. This is not quite as easy to get hold of as most other Fulci flicks, but I assure that searching it will pay off. Any Horror fan MUST see this personal favorite of mine, and I highly recommend any true lover of film in general not to miss this. A Masterpiece! | positive |
Greetings again from the darkness. Director Alejandro Amenabar creates life against all odds in this based on a true story version of one man's struggle to control his destiny. The great Javier Bardem is fascinating to watch in his role as Ramon. His eyes and head movements leave little doubt what is going on in his mind. The dream and fantasy sequences are not overused so prove very effective in explaining why he wants what he wants. Rather than force us to answer the euthanasia question, the real question posed is , What is Love? At every turn we see people in love, looking for love or dying to be loved. The script is tight and keeps the film moving despite being filmed mostly in one room. The supporting cast is wonderful and we truly feel their pain and how each family member deals with Ramon's decision. This is a gem and deserves to be seen. | positive |
The reason I am reviewing this is that the previous review, was written by someone who walked out of this film, not even half way through. Unfortunately for him, he missed out on a film of tremendous beauty. Agreed the film was very slow to start, in fact the friend I was with fell asleep briefly,I woke him before his snoring disturbed the rest of the audience. Thankfully the film developed from there into a story of love, drugs and what it was like to be young and free in the experimental 60s. Fantastic performances from the two leads and a great look to the film that gave it a real authentic feel. Be patient, like many great films its well worth the wait, and is certainly a film that I will look forward to revisiting! 8/10 | positive |
This movie did attempt to capture the naive idealism that many young teenaged girls have for fun, friendship, escape, danger, sex, maturity, etc. The problem was that it failed to establish these things on every single level; which is why it failed to build a decent story around them. I couldn't follow the point of any part of this story, nor any reason why I should care.<br /><br />This movie is not an exploration into pedophilia at all. It's basically about a girl being in love with her sister, and her sister being in love with the idea of "men". While the latter tries out her love of men, the former tries to win her sister back by "getting even".<br /><br />The plot is weak, the characters are weak, and the reality of it all was similar to an amateur porn filmmaker (without the sexual substance). | negative |
I couldn't believe how bad this film was, and trust me, I was not expecting a masterpiece from a made-for-cable film. I taped it just because I liked Jane Seymour. I've seen her enough to know that she is certainly an accomplished actress, so I just don't know what happened here. The characters were shallow, the dialog stilted, the acting bad, and yes that includes Seymour. It was nice seeing her play against type, but not in something this bad. I noticed that she carried a credit for executive producer, so she cannot escape blame for the sheer badness of this film. And oh, yeah, they had Barry Bostwick playing the male lead. 'Nuff said. | negative |
INFERNO starts off with a fairly impressive for a TVM starscape effect . We`re also introduced to a scientist who`s called Heller . Don`t you get it ? Heller , Hell-er , Inferno . So I guess someone on the production had some intelligence . However it does become more and more obvious as the TVM progresses that intelligence has been discarded throughout the storyline in order to appeal to an American TVM audience <br /><br />The story itself is overwhelmed by subplots featuring umpteen stock TVM characters like the tough liberal schoolteacher who`s trying to save a home boy from a life of crime , the doctor who`s lost his medical licence etc . In fact the story concentrates far more on these characters than the approaching disaster that all the potential tension and drama the scenario might have had soon goes up in a puff of smoke , and being a TVM we just know that there won`t be a downbeat ending <br /><br />There is an onscreen problem I noticed and that is everytime there`s an explosion there`s a massive fireball which looks ridiculous not to mention physically impossible . Look at the scene where the national guard are in a fight with a gang . A soldier fires a grenade into a tower block and the whole building explodes in a fire ball . What a small greanade containing no more than a few ounces of high explosive can do that ! No it can`t . There`s also another scene of army engineers blowing up a dam with plastic explosive and the same fireball effect is seen . Can directors please note that high explosive is not the same as napalm <br /><br />Having said that I did find INFERNO highly watchable for a TVM and at no time did I find myself wanting to turn it off . It did have some potential and let me repeat the special effects are fairly good considering the budget and it`s not as bad a TVM as some people are making out | negative |
This movie is actually FUNNY! If you'd like to rest your brain for an hour so then go ahead and watch it. It's called blonde and blonder, so don't expect profound and meaningful jokes. What this movie and enjoy all the stereotypes we have about two blondes. It's just a funny movie to watch on a date or with a company of friends (especially if you're not too sober. Lol ) Pamela and Denise are still pretty hot chicks. It's a mistake to judge this movie as a piece of art. C'mon, this movie is about BLONDES! It's supposed to be light, funny and superficial. One more thing, I do not think that girls will appreciate and like this movie but guy definitely will. | positive |
I am ashamed to admit in public that I even held the cover of this movie once! This is an absolute reason why one should research on the movie before seeing it! The 'makers' of this movie have called us all fools and gullible losers with too much time on our hands.<br /><br />Based on the mythical Indian shape-shifting powerful cobras and rebirth, the story takes us for a painful ride. College going 40+ actors (now really?) are the target of their former friend Manisha Koirala (who was in her former life a cobra, but is now a ghost!) and her pathetic, eternal, powerful boyfriend cobra/killing machine boyfriend Munish Kohli (who thankfully hasn't been seen since). Now do you need to know more?<br /><br />I vote for studying for the upcoming test in school rather than this movie! Give it a pass if you are sane. If not... then you'll probably enjoy it. | negative |
I so wanted to believe in this movie after the only form of mainstream comedy this country recognises is slapstick and stereotypes.<br /><br />Of course, it went completely the other way - let's be cool and edgy - and came out the other side with little to show for it. I bet One Small Seed went nuts for this. I know SL did.<br /><br />None of the main characters have the comedic chops to pull it off. Even Danny K had better timing. I'm actually being serious. Every time they introduced a bit character I kept thinking, "Darn, this person should have been the lead!".<br /><br />Independent doesn't mean that the camera work needs to be horrible. Black and white did nothing for this movie - actually with such flat dialogue it hurt this even more by bringing the boredom into sharp relief. The black and white also wasn't crisp. The composition was horrible. The use of music was horrible. Strangely enough I watched Little Miss Sunshine after this movie and the composition on that was superb - maybe that's why the deficiencies in this movie stick out in my mind.<br /><br />I think Corne (who was funnier than the leads before he even said anything) was speaking to this movie and not David - see it and you'll understand. I bet the guys who organise Oppikoppi were dismayed. One would think nothing happens there at all. I got the feeling it could have been filmed in someone's back garden. I know regular guys who have much funnier, raunchier and wittier conversations than any of these "comics". The dude who they hooked up with end was OK though.<br /><br />Guess SA comedy's gonna stay in the stone age a little longer. Nice work guys. | negative |
This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.<br /><br />As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.<br /><br />And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story. <br /><br />I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.<br /><br />This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere. | negative |
Sometimes you have to look back to go forward. The 60's did just that. We need to remember the past. The past is part of the future.<br /><br />Great mix Gary J. Coppola. I see a great future. You deserve to be nominated and win, The 60's best mixer of the year.<br /><br />Best mini-series of all times.<br /><br />Thanks Ursula<br /><br /> | positive |
Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push. | negative |
Bangville Police supposedly marked the debut of the Keystone Kops, named after the studio they worked for. In this one, however, they don't dress in the silly cop costumes or drive the fast-paced car that's their trademark. Anyway, Mabel Normand is a farm girl here who's begged her dad for a calf. She later sees some strange men in the barn and quickly calls the police. One answers and the chase is on. Next, Mabel slams her door just as someone is coming in. Turns out it's her mother who jumps to the conclusion robbers are in there! So while Mabel blocks her door with furniture, the mother and father try to fight their way in! This was perhaps the most amusing part of the short along with some explosions of the cop car. This was a short 7 minutes that went by so fast it's over before it's begun. The only real characterization that's developed is Mabel's who exudes charm with just her face and big eyes and seems so optimistically cheery here except, of course, when she's frightened. It's easy to see why she became a star. It's largely because of her that I'd recommended seeing this at least once and why I'm giving this a 4. | negative |
We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide "Infomercials" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.<br /><br />No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.<br /><br />So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty. | negative |
When I was five years old, it was my favorite television show. I remembered it was on channel 11 at 2PM everyday. The show's premise was simple with Carole and Janis as the hostesses of this children's television show. They sang songs and read stories to us as children. It was done in a studio with only 54 episodes which was re-broadcasted over and over. I remember Sherlock, the puppet, in the tree. The show taught us how to count, add, subtract, and the alphabet. For thirty minutes a day now, I learned something new with Paula and Janis. I remember those days as pleasant memories and now I hope the children of today can learn to love simpler things like hearing stories, inexpensive props, riding the swings, and talking to puppets. The set was ideal and simple but it was Carole and Janis who made it worth while while. I miss my childhood and those days where the most important thing was watching the Magic Garden. Life seemed so much simpler and better. Now, I hope the kids today enjoy the show. | positive |
Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat... | negative |
Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done. | positive |
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a fair number of Sherlock Holmes accounts but the popularity of the famous detective insured that sequels in both print and on film would extend far beyond the author's works.<br /><br />In "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," Holmes, Basil Rathbone, patriotically serves British intelligence in order to secure a Swiss scientist's desperately needed bombsight. The film is from 1942 and I wonder if the producers and writers realized how vital bombsight secrets were (the American Norden bombsight was guarded almost as zealously as the new radar sets that would change the course of World War II).<br /><br />Holmes and his faithful but expectedly bumbling companion, Dr. Watson, Nigel Bruce, battle Dr. Moriarty, Lionel Atwill. As evil as Moriarty has always been it's a bit of a shock to see he's signed up with Hitler. Has the man no vestige of decency? I guess not. But Atwill is deliciously evil.<br /><br />The story is reasonably fast-paced as Holmes and Watson seek to recover stolen bombsight components before they can be delivered to a U-boat. Rathbone is his usual suave self and several Holmsian disguises are well carried out.<br /><br />This and other 1940s Holmes stories are now available on DVD and oldies.com has put out a very nice four-disc set in a wooden box: this film is included along with a bonus CD of an interview with the aged Doyle. The set retails for about $26 in major DVD and CD stores but I found this and other sets from oldies.com at a warehouse club for $14.98. The transfers are very good.<br /><br />Very nice and relaxing late night viewing.<br /><br />7/10. | positive |
One would think that a film based on the life of the Japanese author Yukio Mishima would be a daunting if not impossible task. However Paul Schrader has indeed made a film "about" Mishima that is both superb & complex. While it is not a literal biography, Schrader & his co-screenwriter Leonard Scharder (his brother) have taken several incidents from his life, including his sucide and crafted what can best be described as incidental tableaus that are visually sparse and stunning. Mishima's homosexuality is almost not there, due to legal threats from his widow, but in spite of this, the film is still terrific, and one of the best films I saw in 1985. I should also mention the important contribution of Philip Glass who did the score, which adds an additional texture to the film, and is superior to the one he did for Scorsese's Kundun. Also notable is John Bailey's fine crisp beautifully colored cinematography and the great production design & costumes by Eiko Ishioka who went on to do the memorable costumes for Coppola's Dracula for which she received a well deserved Oscar. Hopefully this film will soon be available on DVD. | positive |
Highlighting the acting of Sidney Poitier and the brooding on-screen presence of John Cassevetes, The Edge of the City is a highly-watchable film from the fifties, directed by Martin Ritt. There is great acting and stunning on-location photography in black and white.<br /><br />Poitier is a delight at this point in his career and Tommy Tyler, the character he plays is happy and outgoing. He befriends Axel Noordman, played by Cassevetes, who is a young man suffering from poor self-esteem and a past that he wants kept under wraps. Tyler, a black man, brings his friend out of his shell and introduces him to his family and a new girlfriend.<br /><br />Tyler and Noordman are employed on the New York docks at a time when the workers were expected to tow the line, if they knew what was good for them. The boss Charles Malik, played by Jack Warden, in one of his many hard-bitten roles becomes the focus of discontent, which leads to a climactic showdown with Noordman.<br /><br />At the end of the movie, we are left with mixed emotions. However, the two main characters have left the audience with a story of friendship between two different men in a hostile world. | positive |
Heard about this film a long while ago and finally found it on ebay for five bucks. I wasn't expecting much but wow, was I ever surprised. It's a story of a boy and girl in love trying to escape an evil king who wants the girl for himself and takes place in a huge castle, reminds me of ICO for PS2 because some shots gave you a sense of vertigo.Sounds pretty standard but this movie is insane! It's hard to believe such an original animated feature was made in 1952. Also, the king was probably one of the creepiest character's I've seen in a long time, with a feminine walk, weird eyes (usually crossed), and a soft but scary voice. The only problem I had with the film was that the boy and girl had no personality and hardly even any lines except for calling for mr. wonderbird (A large talking green bird)to save them. The animation was fantastic in most areas but some cells were missing from some scenes which sucked. It's incredibly original with flying police and giant mechs and even laugh out loud funny at times, it's a real shame this is such an obscure title because it's really a good film. Check it out sometime. | positive |
The Prophecy II, what's there to say about it? They've completely abandoned the originality of the first film, and simply made a Chris Walken splatter film. It's not even written by the original writer!<br /><br />If you've seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2 it's a real disappointment...<br /><br />If you haven't seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2! Go see Nr. 1 to experience something original and fun | negative |
Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film. | negative |
Wow. Watching this film today, you can't help but be appalled by the writing of this film. Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young play a couple who, in modern times, might be featured on "The Jerry Springer Show"--as they have a sick and abusive relationship...and inexplicably, the writers appear to be endorsing it! <br /><br />The film begins with a hungry and homeless Loretta being shown the ropes by the poor but very resourceful Spencer Tracy. He shows her how by conniving you can do very well with little money and takes her home to his shack to stay. It's never clear whether or not they marry--and considering it's a Pre-Code film, you can assume they aren't even though they are cohabiting. Their relationship is very strange...and rather sick. While you can see that Tracy cares about her by his actions, he is verbally abusive and a total jerk---and Young comes running back for more like some sort of dog. He calls her "skinny" or "ugly" and these are, in a sick way, his way of using endearments! Later, when he starts fooling around with another woman (Glenda Farrell), she tells her friend that if that's what he wants, it's okay with her!!! It sure smacks of a sado-masochistic relationship and you can't help but feel a bit horrified. Sure, he doesn't hit her but the relationship is very abusive. To show how sick it is, when Young gets pregnant, she tells him "...it's your baby and it's mine, but you don't need to worry, I'll take all the blame for it"!! Yikes! Doesn't this all seem a bit like looking through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home?! Later, in a case of art imitating life, Tracy proves what sort of man he is and disappears. After all, he can't be burdened with a baby--even if it's his. But, he changes his mind and decides to return home. Wow...that's bit of him! And, when he returns, he's nasty and acts like IF he stays, he isn't obligated to care for the kid!! And, she tells him he's "a free man...free as a bird"! Wow, I was almost in tears at this tender moment...NOT! Soon, this crazy pair are married...and, naturally, Young is depressed because he seems to be staying as long as it suits him--not because of any love or sense of responsibility. So how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick characters? What would you do? Well, as for the writers, they have Tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat! The romantic aspects of the film are underwhelming to say the least! During the robbery, Tracy behaves like a chump--doing almost nothing to take precautions not to get caught--like he was secretly hoping to get sent to prison. And, to show what sort of nice guy he is, the guy he tries to rob is one of his best friends.<br /><br />While there's more to the film, the bottom line is that Tracy is a jerk and Young is an idiot in the film. Despite both being very good actors, there's absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writers produced. Nice music, nice sets, good acting...and a script that is 100% poo. How the film is currently rated 7.4 is beyond me and I wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the characters. A horrible misfire that somehow didn't destroy the careers of those involved.<br /><br />Oh, and if you wonder if Loretta EVER gets a backbone in this film or plays a person who is the least bit strong, the answer is NO! By the end, she's learned nothing and hasn't changed one whit for the better.<br /><br />They sure don't make films like they used to...and in this case...thank God! | negative |
This is a great Italian shark movie probably not a full action type of shark movie but it has a great story about a native American in the form of a killer shark that attacks a small beach community. the movie has actual scenes of real sharks and some not but how they made it is pretty good the cast are not that brilliant of acting in this shark film but it it shows better acting in some other Italian shark movies such as (e.g cruel jaws,last shark)they show some pretty bad acting but most Italian shark movies are good which means this votes best as the best Italian shark movie ever , some scenes in this movie show violence/gore which makes this film good that it shows it so i would say this is the best film for all shark-movie-fans. | positive |
This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner. | positive |
Bo Derek might have had a career had she not let her late husband, John, take over as her director. It's a real shame, no really, with the right direction and the right part (see "10"), Bo was okay. She wouldn't win any awards even at her best, but she is no worse than many an actress who has made it big in the past 15 years or so based on looks alone. But therein lay the problem, John was determined to ride the wave that Bo created with her appearance in 10, that of Bo being the "perfect 10," "the hottest woman in America," "the sex symbol of the 1980s." Problem is, in John's hands, this wave crashed with a resounding thud in only a few year's time. Maybe he knew her limitations as an actress, perhaps that is why he fashioned movies for her that concentrated on her body, not her acting skills. But it got old real quick. It didn't help matters any that the films of John and Bo Derek are (let's be honest) really, really bad. And bad sums up their take on Edgar Rice Burrough's literary icon, the Lord of the Jungle, Tarzan of the Apes.<br /><br />You know what's worst? This film is boring! Make me laugh, make me cry, just don't bore me. Not even Bo's stunning looks and figure can rouse any interest, and that is what the film is of course built around. Richard Harris (God bless his soul, he and Bo were previously in Orca btw) hams it up and makes his scenes at least a little interesting and Miles O'Keefe makes a physically impressive Tarzan. Maybe he got the last laugh, after being hit with a ton of venom from the critics over this film, Miles went on to a solid career as a B movie icon, in films that were not great art, but a million times more fun than this one. But other than that, it's Bo's body,and you can only see it so many times before you long for something else to go with it. Tarzan the Ape Man has nothing else. John Derek was a truly dynamic actor, he was not a director. He should have stayed with his strength. This film unfolds at a mind numbingly slow pace and nothing really happens in the action scenes. Burrough's Tarzan was all about excitement and wish fulfillment (who wouldn't want to be as agile, strong and good looking as Lord Greystoke?) and fun! You get none of that here. Watch it, and you will have wasted 107 minutes of your life. On second thought, you may come away with a valuable lesson, how not to handle someone's movie career. <br /><br />Bo Derek is all right in my book though. She stood by John until his dying day, has a true love of animals and nature and even looks back with a giggle at her time in the spotlight. She has also proven that she is not the dumb blonde many want her to make her out to be. If she could survive Tarzan and Bolero, she can survive anything. So come back Bo, all is forgiven.<br /><br />And as an aside, is the Steve Strong who plays the bad guy the same Steve Strong who a brief pro wrestling career? | negative |
With the Nazi rise to power in Eastern Europe in the late 1930's, Charles Chaplin turned his attention to creating a reaction to it. The catalyst may well have been a propaganda publication referring to Chaplin as a Jewish sympathizer. In The Great Dictator, Chaplin created a dead-on parody of Hitler that is as funny as it is frightening at times. The film traces Hitler's experiences in the German army from World War I up to the present day. Simultaneously, Chaplin plays a Jewish barber who dresses like the tramp who comes out of a hospital after a long long time, only to discover how different the world is under Nazi rule.<br /><br />Paulette Goddard, Chaplin's wife at the time, plays a young Jewish girl whose family is oppressed in a Jewish ghetto. Jack Oakie has a great, Oscar-nominated supporting role as a Mussolini look-alike (Benzini Napaloni) who gives Chaplin's Hitler character, Adenoid Hynkel, a lot of fits. Henry Daniell is his usual staid self as Garbitsch, chief adviser to Adenoid Hynkel. Chaplin wrote and directed the film and received Oscar nominations for his screenplay and his acting. The film was also nominated for best picture.<br /><br />Chaplin made the film under tremendous pressure for some obvious reasons and some not so well known. He financed the entire film himself at great risk because of the subject matter, and there were no other major films made regarding Nazi Germany up to that time. The film spent about twenty-one months in production with Chaplin even rebuilding a set and re-shooting a scene to get things right. By the time of the film's release in October of 1940, the war in Europe was well under way with Hitler conquering one country after another, so the film became much more topical at its release than when production first began.<br /><br />There isn't much plot in looking at the film in retrospect; the film seems more like a series of comedy sketches and/or mishaps strung together to get to a purpose independent of the film itself. Several examples of this occur in the last third of the film with the meeting between Hynkel and Napaloni. The scene is very very funny, but it leads no where in terms of the plot. Likewise, the escape of both the barber and Schultz simply leads to the mistaken identity of the barber for Hynkel in order to give Chaplin (through the barber character) an opportunity to pontificate to the audience at the end of the film. On the other hand, what better way to make a point about the misplaced narcissism of Aryan superiority than to have a Jewish Barber mistaken for Hynkel? <br /><br />Still, the film contains many high comic moments, such as the rally speech, the new war developments (bulletproof uniforms, etc.), the dancing globe scene, the coin in the pudding scene, and the entire scenario between Hynkel and Napaloni (including the barber chair scene) to highly recommend the film. One can also not forget the risks Chaplin took in making his first talking film, an anti-Nazi film, and financing the film himself. ***1/2 of 4 stars. | positive |
I'm not sure if these other people saw the movie - some apparently couldn't follow the "complicated plot". He's a billionaire who owns an oil company who ALSO happens to big game hunt - wow - that's really far fetched. Any way - his new "drilling machine" happens to break through a glacier and on the other side is a world seperated from our own time where dinosaurs and cavemen wander around. Nothing ground breaking about this but it certainly isn't ludicrous. Anyway the rest of the movie is about this T-Rex they find (which the billionaire, Boone, claimed was there) hunting them and them hunting it. Look - it's an old made for TV movie - of course the special effects look cheesy - they didn't have CG - they did the best they could and for a MFTVM they did a hell of a job for the time. This movie should be remade for the big screen - I'd love it and I'd be the first one in line. Seeing that Dinosaur with modern day special effects stalking those guys would be great! | positive |
It is no surprise that writer/director Michael Powell considered "A Matter of Life and Death," his and Emeric Pressburger's spellbinding fantasy from 1946 to be his favourite of their films together. Released during the aftermath of World War 2, this colourful romantic adventure would have provided just the tonic for a traumatised, recovering nation in need of a good uplift.<br /><br />Following a string of other patriotic war films, 'The Archers' made this one their quirkiest, skittish and most patriotic of the lot. Quintessentially British for upholding British heritage (Shakespeare, beer, fair play, good manners), it is also visibly Americanised in its baroque compositions, technical inventiveness and a fine multi-ethnic cast.<br /><br />Oddly echoing another 1946 classic, "It's a Wonderful Life," AMOLAD opens on a grand firmament, with one of those jolly voice-overs preaching about the earth and the heavens, and what a big, wonderful world we live in. <br /><br />It then cuts to the inside of a British cockpit, badly hit, up in flames and with the co-pilot already dead. It sounds misconceived, but the connection is soon made lucid with the events that follow.<br /><br />Clocking in at nearly 5 minutes, the rapid-fire exchange between British pilot Peter (David Niven) and American radio contact June (Kim Hunter) is breathtaking in its intimacy. Resigned to dying, Peter nevertheless exhausts plenty of vigour, charm and outpouring confessions, and his warm affiliation with June closes with a mutual exchange of 'I love you.' <br /><br />Keeping with the magic of the moment, Peter, by oversight of his Conductor 71 whose job it was to transport him to the 'Other World,' escapes death and finds himself stranded on a beach. He later encounters June riding a bicycle, and instantly matches the body with the voice. <br /><br />But realising their error, the high court want Peter sent back, and order the French Conductor (Maurice Goring) down to earth to retrieve him. But Peter is adamant to live because of June and the Conductor's mistake, and wilfully guards his corner.<br /><br />Peter's fate ultimately lies with the heavenly court and American prosecutor (Raymond Massey), whose jury consists of several deceased war heroes and posh British delegates. The surreal trial, which dissolves from b/w back into rich Technicolor, once the verdict is announced, may well be a dream, but the final shot in the hospital validates the predictable outcome.<br /><br />The abstract, frame filling "stairway to heaven" (the American title of the film) is used twice: the first time in b/w, when it elevates Peter and his enigmatic French guardian upwards, crossing giant statues of Peter's potential attorneys for the trial, including Abraham Lincoln and Plato. The second time, the softly lit colour stairway provides the setting for what is an iconic image in cinema - Peter and June frozen side-by-side, their marvelled eyes fixed forward in the frame, their fate sealed.<br /><br />The unlikely affection shared between Peter and June never turns mushy or verbose; it's treated with nobility and the perception that the couple are already suitable enough to be married and simply need to convince people of their love, so it can keep them together. <br /><br />The French Conductor, who can freeze time and people's bodies, obtrudes many of their key moments together, lecturing Peter about history and among his mischievous tricks, pinching Peter's 'Top 100 Game Tricks' book and his coffee cup.<br /><br />As visually inspired as other Powell/Pressburger collaborations, this was the first time they combined colour with b/w the latter having a cheerful quality when used for the heaven scenes, and both are equally captivating. <br /><br />The outstanding script more than matches the imaginative set design, with dialogue that sounds so immediate that is doesn't feel like it was written or performed for the screen. Amusing and witty, Powell/Pressburger's writing deserves equal acclamation with their forte for colour and composition.<br /><br />Made in 1946, "A Matter of Life and Death" is one of those films that defies it age, looking fresh and inventive, even in this age where CGI would vamp up its artificial effects, probably stripping them of their emotional wonder. <br /><br />Other jarring changes would include the need for reduced average seconds for cutting and the inevitable plea to shorten dialogue so it can preserve the low attention spans of most audiences. Powell weaves a spell that subconsciously absorbs the viewer from the first frame, giving him freedom to experiment with images without betraying the logical development of Peter's predicament. | positive |
I usually like comedy movies. I really enjoy them. But I don't really get the point of "Envy". I mean, it has a dull content/topic, and it's not really funny.<br /><br />Although the acting is generally good, it's not enough for the movie to get at least a bit interesting. Stiller and Black don't show all their talent in this movie.<br /><br />So, if you're about to rent a comedy, I suggest you definitely don't go for this one. Unless you want to get bored, and I can see I'm not the only one with this opinion, because even Jack Black apologized for it (take a look at Trivia). | negative |
"Oh, you pilots are such men." "They don't call it the cockpit for nothing, honey." Dialogue like that is just one of many reasons why The Concorde
Airport '79 (or, if you saw it in the UK where it dragged its heels getting released there, Airport '80: The Concorde) was the last and by far the least of the series. The disaster movie was in dire straits in the late70s, what with The Swarm having offered much unintentional hilarity and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out and City on Fire simply offering much boredom, and the desperation to find a new spin on the genre is all too apparent here. This time it's a conspiracy plot, with Susan Blakely's news anchorwoman discovering billionaire boyfriend Robert Wagner has been selling arms to terrorists and the North Vietnamese. Naturally, she decides to tell him everything rather than make the story public, but, he fobs her off by explaining "I'm a very rich man. I have everything in life I could ever want. Why would I jeopardise that by doing something so incredibly stupid?" Just in case she doesn't buy that line, rather than, say hire a hit-man to kill her on the ground, he decides to do things the smart way by planning to destroy the Concorde while she's flying to Moscow via Paris. "I've done a lot of things I've been ashamed of, but I am not a murderer," he insists indignantly on his way to reprogramme a guided missile to destroy the plane. So, nothing incredibly stupid there. And when that fails, he sends a jet fighter after it. And when that fails
<br /><br />Don't even think of looking for anything resembling logic here: this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that even the studio gave up on and marketed as a comedy in the US after critics laughed it off the screen. Where the previous three entries all had the look of glossy big-budget entertainments, this small-screen friendly effort (the only one not to be shot in 2.35:1 widescreen) doesn't even manage to make the Concorde look good, which is quite a feat. TV veteran David Lowell Rich presumably got the directing gig because he was fast, cheap and had previously directed TV movie SST: Disaster in the Sky where Peter Graves' supersonic airplane found itself unable to land due to sabotage and Senegalese flu (which was not, intentionally at least, a comedy despite the presence of a young Billy Crystal in the cast) and seemed like the natural choice for what looks like a $14m TV movie that somehow escaped into theatres when no-one was looking.<br /><br />Cast like a bad episode of Hollywood Squares, stars are in very short supply this time round, and most of the few vaguely familiar faces seem to have been rounded up from rehab clinics and busted sitcoms. Alain Delon gives the Hollywood career that one last shot as the pilot, "Happy Fish" (don't ask) George Kennedy moves from the executive suite to the co-pilot's seat in the hope of reminding people of the other movies, while the rest of the ensemble includes a couple of veterans of The Towering Inferno (Wagner and Blakely), a soft-porn star (Sylvia Kristel, trying to go respectable), an Ingmar Bergman regular (Bibi Andersson and she's the one playing the hooker!), David Warner's navigator on a diet having nightmares about being chased by bananas, the voice of the Devil (Mercedes McCambridge), Charo and her Seeing Eye Chihuahua ("Dohn miscon-screw me"), Martha Raye and her weak bladder, Jimmie Walker playing the sax in his seat and smoking weed in the john (in the few moments its not occupied by Martha Raye), Cicely Tyson kissing her credibility goodbye as the obligatory mother with critically ill child and a frozen heart in the overhead locker, airline owner Eddie Albert and trophy wife Sybil Danning occupying the best seat in the house, Ed Begley Jr in goggles, and the Russian Olympic team and their lovable coach Val Avery and his deaf daughter (ahhhh!) on a goodwill tour of the States (who knew about the boycott?). Just to add a touch of The Simpsons to proceedings, Harry Shearer voices one news report in the same tones he'd later use for Smithers.<br /><br />Highlight? Despite the impromptu wedding ceremony during a crash landing, it just has to be George Kennedy diverting a heat-seeking missile by opening the window, sticking his arm out (at nearly twice the speed of sound!) and firing a flare while the plane is upside down! And then Alain Delon turns off the engines so there won't be a "heat source" for the missiles to home in on
Yes, someone actually got paid for writing this, and that someone was future Oscar winner and screenwriter of Munich and The Insider Eric Roth (hey, everybody has to start somewhere), although in his defence it was producer Jennings Lang who came up with the plot. Still, what do you expect from a film that credits stunt balloonists and ends with a shot of the Concorde flying off into the sunset? Amazingly, in one of those won't admit defeat moments studios used to be prone to, Universal shot another 20 minutes or so of footage a couple of years later to include in the network TV showings (not included on the DVD). Sadly its box-office failure led to the fifth entry in the series, the laugh-riot that would have been Airport 1984: UFO, never getting off the ground. Even more genuinely tragically, it was the Concorde used in this film that crashed in France 21 years later.<br /><br />(Oh, and if you're wondering what Charo says to her Chihuahua in unsubtitled Spanish when it's not allowed on board, it's "What do you think? Don't worry. When the revolution comes, I promise you will fly on anything you want. I promise. What a shame, my love. What do they think they are?") | negative |
It's hard to make a bad movie with the "underdog finally succeeds" sport theme, but this movie succeeds admirably. My mind boggles at how pointless and boring this film is.<br /><br />I guess the director couldn't decide whether this was about the runner or the coach. It ends up being about neither. Ultimately, who cares? Neither character has a likable personality. There is nothing in the movie to make you care about anyone. Even the "bad guy" isn't really bad. (I think he's in two scenes, and seemingly is on some kind of barbituate. ) I think he asks her, once and politely, to leave the coach and train with him. Then later he kinda' sorta' asks her to move in with him. that's it. Conflict! Tension! What will she do? !!<br /><br />-And what's with the depiction of running? Has the director ever SEEN an actual marathon? Christine's form is so incorrect it's absurd, as is the form of the supposed "champion" she competes with (A character with no lines. -Maybe they could have hired, you know, an actual RUNNER?)<br /><br />-And the speed the run at is beyond comprehension. Were they running or speed walking? It's actually laughable. I can literally walk backwards faster then they were running in the big race. Maybe it was too hard to move the cameras at real speed?<br /><br />Another absurdity: (spoiler, I guess) At one point in the big race, the two women in the lead inexplicably fall, at the same time. What they fell on is a mystery. Maybe they both just got exhausted and fell down? -And then they get up, but don't start running again for maybe 30 seconds. Oh yeah, very realistic. This ridiculous event doesn't even add any tension, since the other runners are not close, and besides at this point you have been numbed into a state of catatonia.<br /><br />-I especially enjoyed how all four of her male teammates, highly trained athletes all, drop out of the big race due to charlie-horses, or pulled tendons, or something just as improbable. <br /><br />But who cares? This movie has almost no tension, no resolution, nothing. Some woman runner with absolutely no personality is discovered by an old, boring coach with some past failure that is barely hinted at. They train a lot. She is not happy. They train some more. She wins da big race. Woopie. <br /><br />My description is actually more interesting than the actual movie. I just saved you 90 minutes. Avoid this one like the plague. | negative |
"TNT Jackson" isn't completely unwatchable. But either the version I saw on DVD was edited with a weed-whacker, or the screenplay itself is the lowest level of grind-house/blaxploitation sausage. Or maybe both.<br /><br />Jeanne Bell is supposed to have been a Playmate at one point in her career,and the movie makes the most of the connection by displaying her breasts at least two times more than was really necessary (including a hilarious topless fight scene that I am pretty sure was meant to be funny). I will admit, they are quite nice. Still, she's sort of average looking and doesn't have the charisma of a Foxy Brown, of even a Cleopatra Jones. She does have her moments as an actress in the film, though, but it would have been nice if the director had pushed her a little harder or the screenplay had given her a chance to do more than emote "attitude" and kick people.<br /><br />Speaking of kicking people, the fight scenes (the other putative reason to watch a film like this) are pretty poorly done.There's no real choreography to speak of here, just people posing and sticking feet and fists in the general direction of their opponents. One minor exception is a nice moment with an opponent equipped with butterfly folding knives; another is a sequence near the very end where an obvious stunt double for Bell (and maybe for Stan Shaw) leap around and do some decent sweeps and groundwork for a minute or two before Bell/"Jackson" punches her enemy's liver out, Shaw collapses and the screenplay just stops. (Again, I will admit that this is very much in the tradition of Shaw Brother quickies since time immemorial).<br /><br />There are a couple of supporting actors who are actually better than the film deserves (I'm thinking of "Joe" and the fellow playing the drug lord's right hand man). There's a halfway decent funk laden soundtrack that complements the action on the screen and add a star to the rating by itself. There's a semi-dodgy sex scene that manages to be effective almost in spite of itself.<br /><br />This one is strictly for hardcore fans of blaxploitation. I saw it out of sheer curiosity, and I'm not sorry I took the time. But I can't imagine wanting to take the time to see it again unless I decide to write a dissertation on the pop culture intersections of "Kung Fu Theater" and "Foxy Brown". | negative |
The story is about a working girl (Ann Sothern) who has a pretty thoughtless boyfriend (Paul Kelly). This boyfriend is so busy trying to start his own business that again and again he forgets dates or shows up late. The final straw is when Sothern has a birthday and Kelly says he's too busy to take her out to celebrate. So, not wanting to just stay home, she goes on a blind date with what turns out to be a very rich young man (Neil Hamilton). Sparks fly but it also becomes apparent after Sothern breaks off her relationship with Kelly that new boyfriend Hamilton is a "love 'em and leave 'em" sort of guy. How all this is finally resolved is not too difficult to predict--just suffice to say that in the end everything works out just perfectly.<br /><br />This is a very modest little film from Columbia Pictures--with a relatively small budget as well as second-tier stars. It's clearly a "B-movie" despite there being small roles played by a Mickey Rooney and Jane Darwell--as both had yet to become famous. Now this is NOT to say that these are bad actors or the production isn't any good. In fact, given the production values, this is a pretty amazing film as everything seems to work so well despite having a pretty ordinary and somewhat predictable plot outline. That's because the actors and director did a really good job putting the story across. Plus the writers did a good job of humanizing the characters and making you care about them. The ending, in particular, is really sweet and practically had my tear ducts flowing! Because of these factors, the film earns a 7 of 10. | positive |
First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it. | negative |
This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good. | negative |
Meaning: if this movie got pitched, scripted, made, released, promoted as something halfway respectable given the constraints (yeah, I know, Springer, sex, violence), where is He?<br /><br />Reminded me of porn movies I saw in college, plot and dialogue wise.... shoulda just done something for the scurrilous porno market, showed penetration and be done with it-- would have made more money, the ultimate point of this exercise.... | negative |
At first you think another Disney movie, it might be good, but it's a kids movie. But when you watch it, you can't help but enjoy it. All ages will love this movie. I first saw this movie when I was 10 and now 8 years later I still love it! Danny Glover is superb and could not play the part any better. Christopher Lloyd is hilarious and is perfect for the part. Tony Danza is so believable as Mel Clark. You can't help, but to enjoy this movie! I give it a 10/10! | positive |
They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like "A Stop at Willoughby" or "Midnight Sun", and you realize there is no comparison.<br /><br />Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation. | negative |
One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934. | positive |
I can't believe this terrible film was made by the same people who made Lepa Sela Lepo Gore. Watch that and skip this. The plot is muddled and the characters are mostly two-dimensional stereotypes. I suspect the editor went on vacation halfway through the film because quick, choppy cuts start to appear that only confuse matters rather than elucidate them. The ending doesn't make sense either.<br /><br />This is predominantly a propaganda film made so Serbs can feel sorry for themselves and vilify America for the NATO bombings of 1999. They do this by perpetuating lies about Serbs being our allies during WWII, claiming the whole world is unjustly against them, and completely ignoring everything said and done by Slobodan Milosevic, like waging war on three neighboring countries. They seem intent on making a political film but only show a few seconds of Milosevic on a TV screen with no sound. A nationalist agenda obviously superseded any consideration of art which was not the case with Lepa Sela.<br /><br />Regrettably, I recommended this film to a teacher when it played last week at the Seattle International Film Festival. He also cited the bad editing and confusing plot, and I had to apologize for the bad advice. You've been warned. | negative |
I was enchanted by Niami's debut. I hope that we'll soon see more of his work. I was lucky enough to catch the film during its brief NYC run and it struck me as a worthy successor to such downtown 80s flicks as Desperately Seeking Susan and After Hours, but with a gentle European whimsey that made it fresh and fun. A strong ensemble cast playing mostly against type was a pleasure. And I thought the complexly inter-threaded plots were just right. Sandra Bernhard puts in her best performance since King of Comedy, while Peter Stormare is hilarious, and Ling Bai touching. See it. | positive |
The real life case of an innocent First Nations chief(the Indian) by an Winnipeg city officer(the Cowboy) is the basis of this TV movie. The actual case caused its fair share of racial tension in Canada, a small scale Martin Luther King thing. The misjustice of First Nations people is becoming a staple in the Canadian cinema diet. What makes this film worth viewing is the focus on the family's reactions. The father played by Gordon Tootoosis demands forgiveness and the brother played by Eric Schweig demands justice. The stars Gordon Tootoosis and Adam Beach(WINDTALKERS, SKINWALKERS)have minor, almost cameo, appearances. Soon-to-be star Eric Schweig makes his mark in this film with a powerful performance. An honourable mention goes to veteran actor Gary Chalk who has chalked up over 100 movies to his credit. His portrayal of the troubled soul Inspector Dowson was worthy of a Gemini Award(the Canadian Emmy)along with Eric Schweig. The special effects(jump cuts, dream sequences) are occasional and not overbearing. Couple this with some beautiful northern Canadian scenery and recent ongoing events involving police officers and First Nations people like the Neil Stonechild case, and you have a very rewarding and relevant viewing experience. | positive |
I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.<br /><br />When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.<br /><br />Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.<br /><br />Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was. | negative |
This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one. | negative |
In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.<br /><br />When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had "From the creators of Anaconda" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed "Scream" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident
actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some "good" 70's horror films, one being "Don't Look Now". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites "Alice, Sweet Alice" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling "no duh!" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it! <br /><br />Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled "The New face of evil", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.<br /><br />Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really. | negative |
The 1973 "Day of the Jackal", directed by Fred Zinnemann from the Frederick Forsyth novel, while not a masterpiece in the general scheme of things, was nevertheless quite an above-average thriller, written and carried out with considerable panache, wit, and style. It remains a pleasure to rent and watch now and then.<br /><br />In adapting that for the 1997 "The Jackal", it seems that at every turn the writers and director made the worst possible choice, making it all quite leaden, overdone, unsuspenseful, unsurprising, unsexy, and unthrilling. If we put together a catalog of all the specifics that went into this movie, big and small, I could give you a mini-essay for each topic on how the 1997 adaptation ****ed up.<br /><br />Item: the weapon. <br /><br />In the original, there is considerable intrigue over how the assassin is going to smuggle it onto the scene, how he intends to disguise it, and why it needs custom work from his underground craftsmen. In the remake, they apparently thought that today's action-flick-raised audiences wouldn't tolerate a small rifle whose point is precision and would demand the lugubrious off-the-[black-market-]shelf machine gun, which needs a minivan to transport it, and whose point is to shout Macho. The whole involved and interesting business about disguising its components, has been reduced to showing us (repeatedly, like this is a difficult point to follow?) that the joystick for his absurdly high-tech remote-control system has been in his pocket as a pen. <br /><br />Item: the conspirators and motive.<br /><br />Without resorting to dry lecture, the original still manages to give us a good understanding of the historical situation of the "pieds-noirs" [ "blackfeet"], the French-Algerian irredentists who could not accept that the century was moving away from colonialism, and formed the view that De Gaulle had betrayed them. This gives the whole plot some historical weight. The remake seems to leave it as a gangland-shootout revenge story, minimally spicing it up by making them Russian gangsters. Note please that I'm not opposed to updating: they could have done this intelligently and come up with something more current but non-trivial. Certainly Russia and the rest of ex-USSR have been through huge changes of late, and an updated story could have been situated there in a way that would make us feel that it *matters*.<br /><br />Item: the relationship of the assassin on the run and the police hunting him down; and the complex steering of the viewer's sympathies from the bad guy to the good guy.<br /><br />Above I hesitated somewhat at calling the original a masterpiece overall; but in this aspect it really was one. We follow along with the assassin for much of the first portions of the film, and having seen his cleverness and resourcefulness we begin to admire him, and not want to see his plan thwarted or see him caught -- at least, not too soon! Then we meet the policeman who gets pushed into heading up the investigation / protection efforts, and bit-by-bit we take to him, and see he is not the sad-sack his domestic troubles may have suggested. By the time it matters, we have been won over to his side.<br /><br />In the remake, perhaps Poitier could have handled that sort of development , but Gere sure can't. And the absurd "48 Hours"-derived gimmick of the con brought out to help the police should have been left in those comedies where it came from. <br /><br />The remake has the assassin and the assassin-hunter *talk* about how they 're like players above a chessboard, communicating indirectly via their moves and only able to *infer* what the other is like. That was achieved superbly in the original. But in the remake in fact they're brought into face-to-face confrontation way too soon, so they can grimace at each other, bloody the place up, and go through some fairly standard chase scenes.<br /><br />Item: photography, and "scenery".<br /><br />The remake does have some nice images, particularly in snowy Finland in the opening section. But the Washington, D.C Metro cannot really compete with the streets of Paris for interesting perspectives and bystander faces. | negative |
I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I enjoyed the acting and it moved along well. The director seemed to really grasp the story he was trying to tell. I have to see the big budget one coming out today, obviously they had a lot more money to throw at it but was very watchable. When you see a movie like this for a small budget you have to take that in to account when you are viewing it. There were some things that could of been better but most are budget related. The acting was pretty good the F/X and stunts were well done. A couple of standouts were the guy who played the camera asst. and the boy who played the child. These kind of films have kept LA working and this is one that turned out OK. | positive |
Vadim changed Brigitte's image and way of life from that of the young society beauty he had married to that of a rebellious and challenging teenager of the 1950s
<br /><br />"Une Parisienne" succeeded in launching her ravishing figure as the teenage goddess, the casual sexuality, the provocative gaiety in confrontation with men
<br /><br />Charles Boyer as Prince Charles was the perfect, ideal choice of those magically romantic moments
His deep and vibrant voice spoke a promise of new adventures in love
His deep, wondering eyes bespoke a worldly knowledge untarnished by cynicism
He had the boudoir grace of Valentino without the hysteria or the sometime effeminacy of the great lover
Under Michel Boisrond's direction, Boyer was an old-style romantic without the grand manner
| positive |
This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time. | positive |
Playwright Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) has had a series of flop plays after a huge hit. He receives a play written by a student of his, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) which is fantastic. It's so good Sidney says he would kill for it. Will he?<br /><br />A thinking man's thriller. It was originally a play...and it shows. It's mostly on one set and all talk but I was never bored. It's very well-written with plenty of twists and a good cast working full force. Caine is just great as Bruhl--another one of his great performances. Reeve is, surprisingly, very good. I never thought much of him as an actor, but he's really good in this role. Dyan Cannon does wonders with an underwritten role as Bruhls' wife. Irene Worth is also good (and quite funny) as Helga ten Drop, a psychic. However, her accent did get on my nerves. Director Sidney Lumet does very well with his one set. The camera is always moving and keeps your attention going.<br /><br />EXTREME SPOILER DEAD AHEAD!!!!! My only complaint is that two gay characters in this movie turn out to be raging sociopaths and it also contains one of the most unromantic kisses I've ever seen--but these are mild complaints.<br /><br />A very good thriller. Critics hate this movie (for some reason) and it seems to have completely disappeared since it premiered in 1982. That's too bad--it deserves better. | positive |
The BFG is one of Roald Dahl's most cherished books, but in this animated adaptation the magic just isn't there. This version remains pretty faithful to Dahl's original story so one can't lay the blame on John Hambley's script. If anything the fault lies with the colourless animation, the lethargic pace and the generally lacklustre voice-overs. One would be right to expect this story to make for a happy, vibrant, fun-filled movie..... instead, the film is a hopelessly dull affair that becomes quite tedious to watch. Children who are not familiar with the story should definitely read the book first! All the film will achieve is to put them off read what is actually a children's' classic.<br /><br />Young orphan Sophie (voice of Amanda Root) lives in a none-too-friendly orphanage under the cruel supervision of Mrs Clonkers. One evening she is peering through the window when she spots a massive figure walking stealthily down the village street. The figure realises it has been seen, so it reaches in through the window and scoops Sophie from her bed, placing her into its enormous pocket before fleeing into the night. Sophie soon discovers that she has been kidnapped by a giant from Giant Country, and fears that he will eat her. But to her relief he turns out to be a kind and sensitive member of his species who introduces himself as the BFG (voice of David Jason). The BFG refuses to eat people, instead restricting himself to foul-tasting vegetables known as snozzcumbers. However, Giant Country is populated by numerous other giants who DO feast - every night, as it happens - on poor unsuspecting humans. Sophie and the BFG become great friends, and soon they come up with a plan to thwart the other giants. Together they go to the Queen of England (voice of Angela Thorne) with their remarkable story and beg her to send the army and the air force to fight the man-eating giants. The Queen agrees and so begins a dangerous operation to capture the bad giants before they can harm anyone else.<br /><br />Jason voices the BFG quite well (one of the few pluses in the film) but his good work is almost ruined by somewhat poor sound quality. The rest of the voice work is decidedly uninspired, with very little to bring the characters to life. Similarly, the BFG is the only character that is imaginatively animated - Sophie lacks appeal, and the giants are boringly designed (and look almost indistinguishable from each other). Even the places are uninventive; Giant Country especially comes up short, being nothing more than a barren wasteland with occasional rocks and canyons. At 88 minutes the film is not exactly lengthy, yet it drags quite badly in parts due to the soporific handling of several sequences. Little of Dahl's mischievous humour is conveyed satisfactorily. One chapter in the book deals with the BFG's love of "whizzpopping" (farting) and is laugh-out-loud hilarious. In the film, the same section is totally killed by unfunny handling. I came to the The BFG expecting lots of zest, fun and enjoyment, but what I got was pretty much the opposite! This one is a failed misfire that simply doesn't match the calibre of the book in any department - unfortunately, therefore, it must go down as one to skip. | negative |
My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token "gay" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton! | negative |
Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit<br /><br />space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's "ancient" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't. | negative |
Now this is a real turkey by the overrated director Franco, who gave us such classics as "Las Vampiras/Vampyros Lesbos". Yes, I think that bad films can be great fun. I adore the hilarious howlers of Doris Wishman, Dwain Esper and Ed Wood jr., but this one proved to be too much for me. It is the first film I rated 1. Where should I start? The screenplay is idiotic to the utmost. The dialogue is unbelievably bad. The directing seems to be nonexistent. The best music cue (used repeatedly in this film) was taken directly from the movie "Der Hexer" (1964). And it's BORING! Poor Shirley Eaton and George Sanders! In one shot Sanders reads a Popeye comic while his henchman torture a girl (this aspect is probably the intellectual highlight of this movie). The only thing that baffled me was that Franco promptly showed female nudity whenever I thought the movie would gain from it - this is real directing skill! Still, I'm afraid that a movie in which actors pretend to shoot with machine guns by shaking them is not really worthwhile. | negative |
I would hate to have anyone watch this "inspired by a true story" movie and draw any conclusions about the true event. Few things they did get right were overshadowed by the things that were just not true. Ed Gein never dragged anyone behind a car, never met up with anyone at the graveyard and killed them, no proof he returned body parts to the graveyard. The things he did were awful enough, why try to make it worse? <br /><br />This movie ranks among my 10 worst wastes of eye strain. "In the Light of the Moon" is a much better film on the subject, it is more factual and the acting is superior in contrast to this one. | negative |
What do you get if you cross The Matrix with The Truman Show?<br /><br />I'm sure you've all seen The Matrix by now. The creators of The Matrix say that it is 'anime inspired'. Just from watching the trailer to this classic, you can see where they took the plot from.<br /><br />The film is sort of set in 1980s Japan, and it really shows. The costumes, music and words(in the recent English Language version by AD Vision) are all like they've been directly lifted from the era. I believe it was made in that time also, but due to certain plot points, this doesn't date the film!<br /><br />As you probably guessed by my referencing to The Matrix, the world isn't real. It's not really the 1980's. In fact, it's something more like the 2480's. After a nuclear war, the Earth(or "Biosphere Prime")'s ecosystem was destroyed. The survivors we're forced to escape into space, where the conflict continued. Once the planets(or "Biospheres") were all abandoned, people began to live in MegaZones - cities inside of spaceships, where, via hypnotism techniques and Truman Show-esque illusion, they were made to believe they we're back on earth, in the most peaceful time in recent memory... The 1980s. When young Shogo obtains a mysterious advanced looking motorcycle, it leads him to find out more than he's supposed to know... The Garland(a bike which becomes a mech), a weapon from the 2400's, aids Shogo in his escape from the pursuing military. As more and more is discovered about the MegaZone, the war comes closer to home, and due to conflicts between the military and the computer, the war comes to the MegaZone too... I apologise if those points are seen as spoilers, but the plot is outlined basically that way on the synopsis.<br /><br />Emotions run high in this movie, moreso than The Matrix. You really do believe the war is going on, and Shogo really does become quite scarred by what he's discovering. What starts off as an uber-happy cool 80's flick becomes a tragic tale of war and unreality. These characters are real people, not the cardboard cutouts we saw flipping around in bullet-time in The Matrix. There really is the sense of the suffering people can go through after being caught up in such a conspiracy, and a war. It may just choke you up towards the end... I know it did me.<br /><br />Animation is pretty impressive for it's day, and the picture quality on the ADVision DVD is unbelievable for it's age. The artwork style is beautiful and reminiscent of traditional anime, very cultural. Be prepared for quite a lot of violence and blood, there's also an erotic sex scene.<br /><br />The ending can be seen as a 'there can be no ending', similar to the Matrix, or, supposedly can be followed by the sequel, which I haven't yet had the pleasure of watching.<br /><br />I have to say that this is one of the best animes I've seen, in fact, one of the best movies I've seen, and considered by many to be one of the greatest animes of all time.<br /><br />I must recommend the ADVision DVD, as their take on the English Language is incredible, and does the movie justice, and can be purchased with an artbox for holding the two sequels when they are released, which will have the same vocal cast.<br /><br />All in all, MegaZone 23 is an incredible movie, and deserves to be held highly, and should be an essential in any anime fan's collection. Heck, even my mother enjoyed it. | positive |
I am disgusted and appalled by the positive reviews this movie is receiving. Not only is it hokey, manipulative, and melodramatic. It's also shamelessly offensive. The character of Radio `Gooding Jr.' is paraded around as a cute little stuff animal, like a puppy that's so cute you just want to take him home.' This mentality is shameless; Radio is never treated as a human being, but as a manipulative device to draw sympathies from its audience. Even more atrocious are the film's numerous moments, in which Radio gets hit in the head/trips/falls over/etc. These moments of slapstick comedy had the audience howling with laughter merely purely because, `it's funny because Radio is retarded' This is shameless, Now I do not feel that the word `retarded' is an appropriate word at all to describe the mentally disabled, but this seems to be the stance the film is taking, `Radio is retarded, but that's okay, because he's cute and we like him.' Gooding's portrayal seems better suited for a John Water's film than an inspiring family drama. To add insult to injury the film is incompetent on every level, Debra Winger is uninspired in the role as the `stereotypical housewives' that the very reminder of her heinous monologues insights laughter in all who see the film. The Score by John Horner is pure sap always overlaying its tear some score over the tired cinematography. Ed Harris is decent in a role he could have slept through, but manages to retain much of the audience's attention throughout the film. In conclusion, if you consider yourself a decent human being, ignore this travesty of a film, read the book, but otherwise skip this dire film on an interesting character from American history. | negative |
Okay I saw the sneak preview of this stupid movie. First off the movie is so posed and not real, they are all acting. They can't sing. They are way too full of themselves. Its awful. Yes kids like 8 to 10 might enjoy but its really stupid. I mean they say their manager is a kid. And there record label is fake. Its stupid. Don't see it.<br /><br />As for the set up and directing, not so bad. It is a cute documentary but it documents a stupid thing. <br /><br />Only see this if you don't really like good music. Also, it's very corny. It's not even tasteful. I hate to be so mean...but this really is a piece of junk. | negative |
Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible! | negative |
If Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.<br /><br />Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.<br /><br />That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.<br /><br />*SPOILER*<br /><br />Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.<br /><br />*END SPOILER*<br /><br />The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again. | negative |
I actually went into this film with some expectations, not because I thought the film sounded particularly good, but because I'm a fan of Italian exploitation flicks and with a cast that sees Franco Nero and Telly Savalas starring alongside Oliver Twist, I figured it had to be interesting at least. Well...RedNeck does have one or two positive things going on, but for the most part; it's a dull, lifeless film that is as ridiculous as it is pointless. The plot simply focuses on two criminals (Nero and Savalas) who kidnap a young kid (Oliver). The twist in the tale is that the kid realises that he'd have more fun if he gets accepted into the 'gang'. Telly Savalas and Franco Nero are two actors that have proved they can carry a film on their own on numerous occasions, and they do have some memorable moments in this film - although really for all the wrong reasons. Savalas in particular gives a silly portrayal of the 'bad' criminal. The plot doesn't flow badly, but since nothing interesting happens, that's not really a positive point and doesn't save from the film from being mediocre. Overall, I can't recommend this film; it may appeal to some for its cult value but it didn't do anything for me. | negative |
As far as I am concerned this silent version of The Merry Widow is the worst version ever made. There is no tenderness or love or spirituality about this version, it is all macabre, Germanic, sinister nonsense. It reminded me of Nazis falling in love; who cares?<br /><br />This silent version by von Stroheim is not a faithful adaptation of the original story. In this one we have leering John Gilbert and his gross relative the Prince lusting after this silly American actress, played by Mae Murray, possessed with a modern permed hairstyle and implausible feminist manner that threw me off again and again. I like my romances light and beautiful, with slow build ups; not harsh and sadistic like this one. And come on, those bee stung lips, get rid of them, girl!<br /><br />Go see a live performance of the show if you would like to get a real idea of the sweetness of the original operetta by Franz Lehar. Failing that, wait till TCM shows the Jeanette MacDonald - Maurice Chevalier sound version. It's much better. | negative |
We had to go to an appointment, so we turned on the DVR to record the ending. After it was over, I looked at my husband and said, "Do you have a clue?". He shook his head no. I said, "So you made me watch the end of this movie and I have no clue what just happened". He didn't "make" me, but you know.<br /><br />The movie body itself was quite good. There was a lot of suspense. It kept you wondering. Then came the ending. The ending was... well it just ENDED. You weren't let in on what happened or why. Right up until the credits I kept thinking something would happen to explain it, but it never did. So I came here expecting someone figured it out and I just wasn't paying attention. Nope. Here four years later, I'm just as clueless as tom sawyer was.<br /><br />I still have no clue what went on. I'm just glad I didn't waste any $$ to buy it because I sure would have been mad.<br /><br />OHHHHH! I get it! The end of the movie is what disappeared! ROFL | negative |
I could not believe what i saw...(once) brilliant actors appearing in this dire effort that should never of been made. The plots are dreadful and the dialogue appauling (at first i thought it was a spoof), and the acting abysmal. Everything about it is bad, from the cheap sets to the phony backdrops, a bunch of paintings enlarged. Respectable filmakers struggle to get their vision realised, yet this blasphemous, pathetic attempt at a mini-series makes it to our television's, with 3 oscar winners making appearances. I can only guess everyone involved somehow hurt the writer and director and were forced (maybe at gunpoint)to star in this worthless T.V. trash. | negative |
Great film. No gratuitous gimmicks like in most Hollywood films. Everything supported the suspense of the plot. B&w gave it a basic, no-frills feel also. In short, it was visceral in its simplicity of cinematography and cast.<br /><br />Following serves as an interesting contrast to Memento. Characters in both used manipulation and subterfuge extensively. In that sense, both reminded me somewhat of "In the Company of Men," also highly recommendable. One difference between Nolan's two films is that Memento was a little easier for me to follow, given that the b&w scenes progress in a constant chronological direction, and so do those in color. I don't think that was true of Following, where scenes seemed to be shown at random. If you have the choice between VCR and DVD, I'd highly recommend DVD, since that gives you the option of watching the movie a second time in chronological order, not just in the scrambled (albeit ingenuous) order presented by Nolan. It also makes it easier, upon a second viewing, to piece the order together for yourself, if you want to.<br /><br />As another viewer noted, one of the best things about both this movie and Memento is that none of the cast were famous. They were characters, not big-name actors who brought in personas developed in other movies.<br /><br />Given certain similarities in the plots, I wonder if Memento is sort of a remake of Following, but intended to reach a bigger audience, like Edward Burns made She's the One in the mold of -- and with largely the same cast as -- The Brothers McMullan. | positive |
I just saw The Big Trail in Vienna's Filmmuseum for the first time. Immediately I was astonished by both the pictures optical high quality and unusual format and by its beautifully detailed story. Who has ever seen such a documentary style western with John Wayne? And there is so much time, you can actually look around on the screen, there is so much to see! One is ever grateful that the scenes are often static, because every single shot is so well composed and you want to take it it. Even the acting is good and fits in well. The long running time of the picture is wonderful, you don't want to miss a minute of it! | positive |
Frank Sinatra plays a no-goodnik ex-soldier and frustrated writer, hard-living and hard-drinking, who returns to his Midwestern hometown and reunites with his estranged brother (Arthur Kennedy), now the town big-shot with a disinterested wife and headstrong daughter. Frank gets involved with gambler Dean Martin, uneducated flooze Shirley MacLaine, and has some run-ins with the law, but what he really wants to do is write and settle down with a good woman. Over-simplified drama verging on soap opera, with a role for MacLaine that is by turns overly 'colorful' and embarrassingly sentimental (her drunken belting on "After You've Gone" is however the film's highlight, and is expertly handled). Director Vincente Minnelli oversees it in straight-forward fashion, but he's in surprisingly glum spirits and most of the big scenes are flat or dense. The picture looks incredibly handsome in widescreen, with a nice eye for detail and composition, but the story and these characters are stuck in the dregs. ** from **** | negative |
"It's all up to you, Ed?" "Now you get to play the game." The day my father left my mother, he took me to see this film with his new girlfriend, on opening day at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. I was but fourteen years old. I wasn't even entirely sure what I was seeing, but I will never forgot it, especially the scene with Ned Beatty.<br /><br />Watching it today, thirty-six years later, it still gives me quivers.<br /><br />My father was a huge Burt Reynolds fan, hence the reason for standing in line for almost an hour in to watch what was supposed to be an 'action movie.' I had seen two films at the Dome prior to this: "Grand Prix" and "The Song of Norway." Well this wasn't exactly Mario Andretti or The Brady Bunch. After leaving the theater, I was shell-shocked.<br /><br />But even at that tender age, I appreciated the artistry...and after seeing again today, am I surprised I was still standing after witnessing this highly disturbing, yet extremely well-crafted film.<br /><br />Suffice it to say it was a traumatic experience for a fourteen year-old that had yet to kiss his first girlfriend. I don't blame my father for taking me, but it was a bit much for a child to witness.<br /><br />As an adult, I still find it quite disturbing, yet I am still very impressed with the quality of the film-making.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds as an absolute wonder, as are all the principles...from Billy Redden as the inbred guitar wonder, to Ronny Cox as the terrified insurance salesman...everyone does an admirable job. The sound quality is second to none, from the chirping birds to the ticking clocks. The photography, cinematography...all the technical aspects of this remarkable film are first rate.<br /><br />The moral questions raised, from murdering the sexual assaulters to the aftermath of dealing with killing a human being, remain as profound today as they did when this groundbreaking film was released. And the classic sequences of attempting to survive in the wilderness after dealing with such unforeseen brutality are life-altering. These four men, city men, suddenly confronted with a situation with never imagined, raise the bar from action to horror.<br /><br />It's a classic to be sure. And the phrase "you have a pretty mouth" has been quoted endlessly, from Saturday Night Live to off-the-cuff comments around water-cooler at work, this movie is without a doubt a huge part of our societal pop culture...as much as "Make my day" or "I'll be back" ever were.<br /><br />So what would YOU do if you found your friends being sexually assaulted at gunpoint by mountain men far away from your life in the city, cozy bed, wife and kids? And if you took the measures Burt Reynolds did (and I would have done the same) would you bury the body beneath the soon-to-be-lake, or stand trial and take your chances? The bottom line is: Deliverance delivers. You can take that to the bank. If this movie doesn't get under your skin, then you are not human.<br /><br />Even if you have seen this before, rent it again and ask yourself the above question.<br /><br />My favorite part of the film remains the same: Ed failing to kill the deer...then changing. Life and it's unpredictable circumstance can change a man. And I suppose that's what this film is all about Jon Voight, in particular, as Ed, gives the best performance here. And he remains one of the more gifted actors in Hollywood history, from Midnight Cowboy to his highly underrated performance as Franklin D. Roosevelt in Pearl Harbor, his acting lifts the movie to another level. Climbing the rocks at dusk, terrified and determined to make it right It needs to be seen to be believed. I guarantee your heart rate will elevated to a new level.<br /><br />Briskly paced, tense, taut and tightly drawn as a as a banjo string, this is a morality play that asks questions that remain today. Times have changes, but our choices as human beings have not.<br /><br />Ten out of ten stars. | positive |
The Italians are undeniable masters in the questionable "art" of ripping off and imitating movies. What they do is take an innovative, money-making and foreign concept, maintain the basic plot and just add a whole lot of action, sleaze and political incorrectness. But what to do when the non-Italian original is already a reputedly notorious film and quite difficult to surpass in terms of slop and controversy? Well then, I guess, you simply disregard everything in terms of story-building or stylishness and fully focus on making something that is practically a porno movie! This Italian turkey was inspired by Richard Fleischer's successful slavery-saga "Mandingo", released one year earlier, but since the makers were even too lazy to think up a different title, you shouldn't expect anything that even remotely resembles a narrative depth, character drawings, unsettling atmosphere or thought-provoking statements regarding cross cultural relationships. "MandingA" is pure and simply a sexploitation effort where the plot only develops itself throughout the last ten minutes, in other words when you stopped caring a long time ago already. The characters in this film are a gathering of despicable bastards, which is of course to expect when you're dealing with wealthy and obnoxious white folks running a plantation in South America. The elderly and supremely sleazy owner of the place is a widower (who probably also won a couple of "Moustache-of-the-Year" awards) who exploits and extendedly whips the slaves working for him. His mistress, who if I understood correctly is also his cousin (?), is a genuine bitch of a woman who enjoys provoking arguments and sneaks out of the house overnight to copulate with crucified slaves. When the plantation owner's son returns from Europe, after approximately 25 minutes of purely wasted running time, the plot slightly begin to develop itself at last. The handsome young man has sex with the bitchy woman a couple of times (even in front of the slaves, supposedly to "demonstrate" how their masters do it
) but eventually he falls in love with the cherubic preacher's daughter. His romantic preference obviously makes the bitchy woman mad with anger, and she plots a horribly cruel act of vengeance that will alter life on the plantation forever. Hey
I just realized this brief description of the plot actually makes "Mandinga" sound like an interesting film! Well, it's NOT and I apologize if I raised anyone's anticipations. It's an incredibly boring and hideous film to struggle through, but if the themes appeal to you, then definitely check out the aforementioned "Mandingo". Much rather than sick exploitation, that film is a truly insightful portrait of one of mankind darkest history pages and it was also a properly produced film, with real actors, great music and impressive filming locations. "Mandinga" has nothing, absolutely nothing to offer. | negative |
Set in South Africa, a young black guy tries to land a part in a 'gangsta' movie. But with no knowledge of street life, he's told to find out what that life is really like or he won't get the part. He manages to work his way into a gang led by an old friend of his from school and his chances of appearing in the film decline as he commits crimes to be accepted. But for the gang's leader, the burgeoning disaster of his new friend's life suggests a golden opportunity to do something better with his own.<br /><br />While that may sound relatively interesting, it's anything but. The first half of it is incredibly meandering and tedious, while the "hijacking" only takes place towards the end with some very poorly executed low speed car chases. In those "chases", only two police cars are used, both of which are early 90's Nissan Sunny's. Not only would these be rather cheap to pick up (and I find it rather hard to believe they'd be using such mundane old cars in South Africa in the year 2000), but as far as I can remember, there's only 2 involved and none of them get a scratch once. The car chases are very badly shot, with distant and badly timed camera angles and minimal traffic on the roads, and they're all over in around 2 minutes at maximum as you're supposed to believe that a very small kid is actually a highly skilled driver who can easily evade the police despite the driving being pedestrian and utterly unexciting. This now leads me onto the characters and the acting, which are equally bad. The aforementioned kid who drives the car, looks about 13 years old and supposedly is extremely skilled at losing the incredibly inept police. Everybody else is equally unconvincing, so much that they even look bored at times themselves.<br /><br />At the closing scene of the movie, our main character ("Sox Moraka") is asked by the gang leader to steal a car from a car park. While having trouble opening it, the Police arrive and ask him what he's doing and he replies by telling him it's their car. After a brief argument they try to arrest him and he then holds the Police at gunpoint and jumps back in their car. After he's in, the Police return fire and in turn he gets wounded. After another pathetic chase sequence, they decide to abandon the car and set it alight to destroy any evidence. What follows here is one of the most downright laughable and hideously awful special effects I've ever seen. When the car "explodes", superimposed flames suddenly appear from every window with awful sound effects that aren't even in time. It's so badly done and so phony looking that it's hard to even put it into words, and really needs to be seen to be believed. If you watch it in slow motion it looks even funnier. I've seen better effects than this in murder reconstruction documentaries. The car is a Volkswagen Golf MK2 GTi. Something that wouldn't be worth a huge amount at all, and they seriously couldn't afford to destroy it with a real explosion? I'd love to know how large the budget for this movie was. It feels so cheap that I'm surprised it made it outside of South Africa, and even more surprised it made it to a DVD release.<br /><br />I know it's not a big budget Hollywood production. I know it's meant to depict gangs in impoverished townships of South Africa who steal cars from the middle class in and sell the parts on the black market, but with the laughable effects, poorly executed car chases, awful acting and ludicrous characters, any sense of reality is completely lost.<br /><br />Overall, I most certainly do NOT advise you to watch this. If you want to have a laugh and see one of the most poorly done, low budget messes of amovie ever created, then I'd recommend it for that, and only that.<br /><br />It is a wretched, poorly made, poorly edited, poorly paced and tedious piece of low budget drivel that fails on all counts. I've seen many South African movies, including lots of cheap NuImage/Nu-World action pictures, and despite their cheesiness, they're far better than this on all counts. | negative |
SAKURA KILLERS (1+ outta 5 stars) Maybe in 1987 this movie might have seemed cool... if you had never ever seen a *good* ninja movie. Cheesy '80s music... cheesy dialogue... cheesy acting... and way-beyond-cheesy martial arts sequences. The coolest scene is at the beginning... with an aged Chuck Connors playing golf on a beach... several black clad ninjas try to sneak up on him and it looks like he is too intent on hitting his ball to notice... suddenly he reaches into his golf bag and... naw, I won't spoil it for you... if you ever have the misfortune of seeing this movie you'll thank me. The story is a lot of nonsense about some stolen videotape or something. A bunch of dim-bulb Caucasian heroes are trained in the ways the ninja because "only a ninja can fight a ninja" or something like that. Strange, these guys don't seem to fight any better after their training than before... oh well, the movie does move along pretty briskly. The fight scenes may not be great.. but they are plentiful... and the overdone sound effects are good for a few chuckles. | negative |
I make just one apology for this film: there are far, far, too many wide angle close-ups, and if they irritate you beyond endurance, fair enough. They drove ME barmy for the first ten minutes or so. But after that I made a kind of a truce with the terrible cinematography; and long before the end of the film, I had ceased to care. This is too rich a comedy to be destroyed so easily. It's hilarious, it's witty, the comic delivery of ALL of the cast is flawless, and however much Usher peers at his characters through a cold, fish-eye lens - HE may not care for them much - he manages to present them with warmth. `Mystery Men' is, in fact, not only funnier, not only more clever, but also deeper, than anyone seems to have given it credit for being. The jokes in the Austin Powers movies, for instance, as well as being less funny than the jokes here, are also much more toothless. The satire of `Mystery Men' bites when there's something worth biting and gnaws gently when there isn't. It doesn't mock just any old thing. Which is why, contrary to what some (I must regard them as unobservant) critics have said, it never runs out of ideas.<br /><br />The `super' heroes are an attractive bunch. Sure, they're second-rate, but they're not merely second rate. The Blue Rajah, for instance, does nothing but throw cutlery at people, and he isn't THAT good at it. On the other hand, neither is he comically bad. He's better in his limited field than most people, and he DOES practise diligently. He's not a buffoon, which makes him a much funnier character than if he was. If Superman is Christ in a cape, the Mystery Men are all the minor demigods from the foothills of Mount Olympus, in capes. Much funnier; also much more endearing. | positive |
It's not well shot, well written or well acted but it has to be the most addictive show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Every single revelation is timed so well that you have to see the next episode to get any kind of closure. They have even slowed down the pace of the show where they only reveal tiny amounts of information per episode however it feels like they've just told you everything you wanted to know. However some of the acting is just about awful and some of the duologue is downright brutal. Some characters are very two dimensional. The more experienced actors like Locke and Ecko really stand out over actors who play Jack, Kate, Sayid and so on. The development of the show can also be very frustrating as the following episode may not show what the previous episode lead up to. Annoying side plots have become part of the story that sometimes tell you nothing. However, the second season has developed to a point where back stories reveal more about the island than they had previously. All in all its a great show but not perfect. | positive |
I wouldn't call "We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story" simply a kiddie version of "Jurassic Park". I found it more interesting than that. Like the former, it calls into question the security of bringing beings from one era into ours. But it really opens my eyes when I see who provided the voices: John Goodman, Rhea Perlman, Jay Leno, Walter Cronkite, Julia Child, Kenneth Mars, Yeardley Smith, Martin Short and Larry King. To paraphrase that: a given actor, the "Cheers" woman, the "Tonight Show" host, the Most Trusted Name In News, a famous chef, the "Young Frankenstein" police chief, Lisa Simpson, one of the Three Amigos and the CNN guy.<br /><br />But I guess that I shouldn't focus only on the cast. I thought that this movie had something for both children (purely fun) and adults (natural history). True, it's escapism, but the perceptive kind. I would actually say that John Goodman doing Rex's voice here is sort of a precursor to his voice work in "Monsters Inc". Worth seeing. | positive |
Upon completing this infernal piece of trash, a friend and I swore a solemn vow never to again speak of how we had just trashed away the last 90 minutes of our lives. This film is completely pointless, a two dimensional hero and heroin who we can't give a hoot whether or not they survive and some of the lamest villains to ever darken the screen of horror (or any other) genre. To further prove just how absolutely pointless this film was, I would have liked to add a plot synopsis, but I can't write fiction. All and all, the only reason I can think of that anyone would ever want to view this film is if they had just murdered their entire community and is looking for some self afflicted punishment that will haunt you for all following years to come! | negative |
ALL FOR LOVE ( as it titled when it was broadcast at the weekend ) is a romantic period drama featuring Captain Saint Ives a French officer in Napoleon`s army who is captured by the British and imprisoned in Scotland where he meets and falls in love with a young maiden who visits the prison . There`s also a storyline involving a murder .<br /><br />I will be honest and confess that I wasn`t too taken by the movie since I`m not much of a fan of period dramas and the screenplay feels somewhat episodic but I will say that this is well acted by everyone involved and it`s got a good cast that features Miranda Richardson , Anna Friel , Richard E Grant , Michael Gough and Jason Isaacs . The costume design as you can expect is also excellent <br /><br />I`ll be very surprised if this movie doesn`t get any complaints after being broadcast on BBC2 at teatime . Captain Saint Ives lies in bed with a prostitute where a nipple is fully exposed and there`s a scene of French prisoners bathing that includes full frontal male nudity not to mention a murder scene where blood is clearly seen . You really do have to worry if BBC schedulers have any type of clue as to what they`re doing | negative |
This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting. <br /><br />Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me. <br /><br />This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash. | negative |
Lon Chaney Jr returns to lumber along as the mummy Kharis seeking his mate, Annanka whose soul now resides in the beautiful host of descendant Amina(Ramsay Ames). Andoheb, High Priest of Arkan(George Zucco)leaves Yousef Bey(John Carradine)in charge of Kharis to continue their evil-doing ways. Tom(Robert Lowery)must find a way to save his beloved Amina from certain future mummy terror.<br /><br />Routine, predictable entry in the Kharis series proves that nearly every film follows a specific format/formula. The city is threatened by a skulking, one-armed corpse masked in wrapping who seems to have been gifted with superhuman power to choke the life out of able-bodied men who are restrained with relative ease by a mere chokehold from Kharis. Frank Reicher, who saw Kharis in action..and knows a great deal about Egyptian history..in the previous film(The Mummy's Tomb), proves that anyone who happened to survive a previous encounter with the mummy is sure to die if he returns in the next flick. Well produced, but lacks originality that would set it apart from the other films in the series. Sadly, Carradine sleepwalks through his role as the evil Yousef Bey. Embarrassing script mistake has Kharis, who is known for donning a crippled, lame right arm, carrying an unconscious Amina with both arms for long distances with no ill effects. One aspect, the shocking climax where Tom's attempt at heroism doesn't go according to plan as Kharis holds his damsel-in-distress hostage, lifts the film from the doldrums slightly. | negative |
I have never seen a movie that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. This is not a funny movie. I must say that the plot line is awful. I did not had patience to watch it so that i only saw half of it, but it was enough for me. The characters are not very inspired. Just terribly annoying. This movie is all about a goofy guy trying to hook up with his tyrannous boss's daughter. When he finally manages to talk to her, she asks him to go at that night at her home to watch her father's owl, and he thinks she had invited him to go with her at a party and to be at her home at 6 pm. He gets to be very disappointed finding out that he only has to take care of the owl and that she has a boyfriend. After her father leaves home leaving precise orders, about taking care of the house and his beloved bird, appears a secretary, a renegaded son and all sort of NOT funny stuff happens in the house. But he finally hooks up with his boss's daughter. TRUST ME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!! | negative |
This movie was shot using a digital camera, and it shows. There were enough annoying digital tricks used to alienate the viewer, also with the help of a terrible score. As if that weren't enough, the acting was also terrible. Now in Hartley's movies the acting is always peculiar, but here it was just BAD, especially by Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan)and Harvey, who (thank god) doesn't get to say much. After all these external problems it is also very unfortunate that the story itself is not that good, either. The jokes are predictable and unbelievably straightforward, and the events just rumble on from one incident to the next. The so-called book of life with Armageddon inside isn't much more than an excuse to see actors struggle to say their lines. All in all this movie is a waste of time and money and effort. Thumbs down. | negative |
I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****. | negative |
Travolta, Thurman, The Rock, Vaughn, Keitel and so on. One should think that this star parade of great actors could really heat up this movie, but no. Travolta takes on the role as Chili Palmer again, but this time we have already seen the gangster who tries hes luck in the hard world of movie making, its not funny anymore. This is a typically problem in Hollywood, they think that if the first was good, the second will be twice as good, NO, the first was original, the second cant be, Hey Hollywood try to understand originality cant be duplicated, you got to give us a new twist, not just the same movie again made with a bigger budget. I constantly found my selves Hardly laughing when I was watching this movie, but still it got a lot of cool actors like Harvey Keitel, James Woods, Vince Vaughn and The Rock and for that and that only! <br /><br />4/10 | negative |
The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10. | positive |
Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) has committed an unspeakable crime, the stabbing of the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone). No one, least of all Leland himself, can explain why he's done what he's done, whether the act was premeditated or spontaneous, done out of hatred or love.<br /><br />In the detention center, Leland meets Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), a onetime novel writer who sees in Leland's case a second opportunity. But Pearl also wants to understand Leland's motivation and takes him under his wing as a confidante in the prison.<br /><br />The film jumps from the past to the present several times, often allowing the past to act as a context to the present, and vice versa. Writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge shows how Leland's crime - and the events leading up to it - affect the people in his life, from Becky to her family to Leland's mother (Lena Olin) and estranged father (Kevin Spacey) to Allen (Chris Klein), a young man who is staying with Becky's family after the death of his own mother.<br /><br />The chief asset in the movie is Gosling, who is perfectly cast as the 15-year-old pseudopsychopath. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, Gosling's Leland just exists; he shows little emotion during the film, but instead his expressions belie an ocean of guilt, sadness, love, and rage.<br /><br />Each of the main actors offered perhaps their best work to date, save Spacey (who's not exactly a novice). Special praise is due to Malone and Klein, two young performers who are better known for lighthearted comedy fare than the heavy drama of this movie.<br /><br />Another huge benefit in terms of the story is that none of the characters is flawless; none are heroes out to save the day. This is simply not a black-and-white movie. | positive |
This is an irredeemably stupid, boring, unimaginative, lazily put together piece of garbage. When watching a direct to video slasher pick, it is only fair to expect the film to be trashy on some level, but this goes beyond trashy. It is just horrible on every level, with a cliché ridden script that manages to be both incredibly stupid and incredibly boring at the same time, a cast of no name over actors, and some of the worst special effects I have ever seen. Even fans of slasher movies won't be able to find anything here that would make this film a worthwhile use of an hour and a half. <br /><br />The plot focuses on your usual group of young people who decide to spend the weekend at a remote farm in West Virginia that one member of the group has recently inherited. Unfortunately for the teenagers, the inherited land was once owned by a farmer who made sacrifices in order to help his crops grow, or something stupid along those lines, and now some evil scarecrows are out to kill everybody. I don't know anything about writer director Paul Moore, but I am assuming he is over ten years old, and therefore he ought to be able to come up with something more original than killer scarecrows. Honestly. <br /><br />The special effects bringing the scarecrows to life are laughably poor. They often look like hardly more than Haloween costumes on sticks. Special effects such as these would have been considered rather rather poor twenty years ago, but by todays standards, they are nothing short of embarrassing. <br /><br />This is a total waste of time for all viewers, whether or not they are into horror movies. If you must watch a slasher film, rent any one of the "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" movies. Most of them aren't very good, but are certainly superior to crap like this. | negative |
I just came back from "El Otro" playing here in Buenos Aires and I have to say I was very disappointed. The film is very slow moving (don't get me wrong, I enjoy slow moving films!), slow to the point of driving you crazy. All you hear is Julio Chavez breathing heavily throughout the whole film. This is a poorly made film, but more importantly, it is a film without a lick of inspiration, I felt nothing for the story or its characters.<br /><br />"El Otro" was made only for the sake of making a film... making it forgetful. I would advise you to pass on this one, if you want to see good Argentinian films, look for films by Sorin. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.